SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has granted bail to Khalid Hussain alias Munna, who has spent more than seven years in custody as the sole surviving accused in the 2018 Karwanda Talab murder case.
The Court held that continued incarceration would amount to “persecution”, especially when the prosecution’s entire case rests on circumstantial evidence, and the co-accused has died during trial. Justice Rahul Bharti delivered the judgment on 20 November 2025 in Bail Application No. 141/2024, noting that Hussain had been in custody since November 13, 2018. The co-accused, Azam Hussain, who was arrested on the day of the incident, later died after being granted bail on medical grounds, leaving Khalid as the only undertrial.
The Court said the case against the petitioner “is entirely built upon circumstantial evidence”, adding that whether the chain of circumstances is strong enough to sustain a conviction is “for the trial court to assess, appraise and actuate.”
The FIR was registered at Police Station Amb Gharota in the early hours of 8 November 2018, after the death of 22-year-old Mohd Jabbar, known locally as Ganju, was treated as a homicide. The complainant, Jabbar’s uncle Mukhtiyar Ahmed, alleged that Khalid Hussain and Azam Hussain had jointly killed Jabbar with a sharp-edged weapon “bearing common intention”.
According to the FIR, the deceased’s wife, Shakeela Bibi, informed the complainant that Khalid Hussain had called her husband that evening “on the pretext that he had brought some milk for Jabbar, for which he needed to come and take it”. When she later phoned her husband, she was told he was “sitting with Khalid Hussain and also Azam Hussain”, after which his phone was switched off.
The prosecution has attributed a motive of “one sided liking/love for Shakeela Jan, the wife of deceased-Mohd Jabbar”, asserting that Jabbar was unwilling to leave his wife and that the accused therefore plotted to eliminate him. The police narrative also includes allegations that the two accused led the deceased to Karwanda Talab, attacked him with a knife, and later “de-facing the deceased victim Jabbar by blow of stone”.
However, the Court highlighted that the case lacks any direct witnesses. “There is no prosecution witness who comes forward as an eye witness to the alleged incident,” Justice Bharti wrote. “All the prosecution witnesses cited to prove the alleged occurrence are relatable to circumstantial testimony.”
The Court also noted significant inconsistencies between the FIR and the police charge sheet regarding the circumstances under which Jabbar left his home.
The trial, pending before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, has proceeded slowly. Of the 35 prosecution witnesses, several key witnesses including the complainant, the deceased’s wife, and neighbours have been examined, but many official witnesses remain. The prosecution is still leading evidence, and the Court observed that completion of trial is “far away.”
This prolonged delay, Justice Bharti held, cannot justify indefinite incarceration, “The petitioner cannot be made to suffer the agony of continuing custody which has lasted more than seven years in running… continuing custody of the petitioner has literally become incarceration and persecution for the petitioner.”
On behalf of the petitioner, Advocate Zainab Shamas Watali argued that the evidence led so far “does not chain together to even remotely implicate the petitioner” and that he was being prosecuted “just for the sake of persecution proceeding on conjectures and surmises”. She submitted that the FIR itself showed signs of “conjectures gatherable in bold print”, particularly the timing and tenor of allegations.
Opposing the bail plea, government counsel Mr Pawan Dev Singh contended that the “serious nature of offence” and the possibility of the accused influencing remaining witnesses warranted continued custody. He stressed that Jabbar was killed with a knife and a stone and that the accused had allegedly confessed during interrogation.
But the Court found that the key prosecution witnesses—the ones who “create and cast the narrative”—have already been examined. The remaining witnesses, it said, are mostly official witnesses whose testimony is documentary in nature. “Therefore, there is no question of said prosecution witnesses being swayed by the petitioner in the event of being enlarged on bail,” the Court held.
It further noted that Khalid Hussain has “not been projected to be a person with criminal antecedents of any sort.”
Justice Bharti emphasised that bail decisions must not prejudice the trial. “The constraint is that this Court is not to reflect upon merits and demerits of the Prosecution case… as any observation may have a telling effect on the final judgment.” However, courts are “obliged” to provide clear reasons for granting bail. In this case, seven years of custody, staggered trial progress, circumstantial evidence, and the death of the co-accused constituted compelling reasons.
Holding that enlarging the petitioner on bail “would have no prejudicial effect on the criminal trial”, the Court directed that the trial judge impose strict conditions ensuring that the accused regularly attends proceedings, does not influence witnesses, and does not leave the jurisdiction without permission. It ordered that Hussain furnish a “sound surety bond” and a “personal bond of a higher amount” to ensure he does not abscond.
The Court concluded, “The concern of criminal administration of justice is to ensure that the accused person bearing trial does not flee from the call of justice. This aspect… can be well attended to by restricting the scope with respect to the petitioner’s movement upon being enlarged on bail.”
The bail petition was accordingly disposed of.
